2.3 CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS AND WATER QUALITY INDEX (WQI) VALUESConcentrations of major water quality constituents observed during water years 1998 -2001 are listed in Appendix A. In comparison to median values observed in a largesample of Florida streams (H<strong>and</strong> et al. 1994), concentrations of several constituentsappeared elevated at a number of the <strong>Peace</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Myakka</strong> <strong>River</strong> stations. Theseparameters included:• phosphorus forms• nitrogen forms• total organic carbon• turbidity• TSS• color• chlorophyll-a.The State of Florida has developed a stream water quality index (WQI) — based onobserved concentrations of nutrients, water clarity, DO, <strong>and</strong> oxygen dem<strong>and</strong>ingsubstances — that is helpful for summarizing water quality monitoring data (H<strong>and</strong> et al.1994, 1996). Sampling data collected in 1987 from 2,000 Florida stream reaches wereused to determine percentile distributions for each indicator on a statewide basis (H<strong>and</strong>et al. 1994, 1996). Index scores are calculated based on these percentile distributions.For example, a site exhibiting an average TN concentration of 1.2 mg N/L (the medianvalue observed in the 1987 data set) would receive an index score of 50 for thatindicator. Scores are averaged across indicator categories to obtain an average WQIvalue per site (H<strong>and</strong> et al. 1994, 1996). State guidelines suggest that average indexvalues of 0-44 indicate “good,” 45-60 indicate “fair,” <strong>and</strong> >60 indicate “poor” waterquality conditions in Florida streams.H<strong>and</strong> et al. (1996) provides the following summary of the WQI:“The Florida <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Quality</strong> Index has several advantages over previousmeasures. First, since it is based on the percentile distribution of Floridastream data, it is tailored to Florida. Second, the index uses the mostimportant measures of water quality in Florida: clarity, dissolved oxygen,oxygen-dem<strong>and</strong>ing substances, nutrients, bacteria, <strong>and</strong> biologicaldiversity. Third, it is simple to underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> calculate <strong>and</strong> does notrequire a mainframe computer or any complex data transformations oraveraging schemes. Finally, the index nicely identifies areas of good, fair,<strong>and</strong> poor water quality that correspond to professional <strong>and</strong> public opinion.”An application of the WQI to the water year 1998 - 2001 <strong>Peace</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Myakka</strong> <strong>River</strong>sampling data is shown in Table 2. (In recognition of the naturally-elevated phosphateconcentrations that can occur in these basins, TP concentrations were omitted from theaverage WQI values shown in Table 2.)10
For this study, annual average WQI values were calculated using five parameters(turbidity, total suspended solids, total organic carbon, nitrate+nitrite nitrogen, <strong>and</strong> totalnitrogen). A total of 58 annual average WQI values were calculated for the 16 stationssampled during water years 1998 - 2001 (Table 2).The Saddle Creek at Structure P-11 station, which is located immediately downstreamfrom Lake Hancock in the upper <strong>Peace</strong> <strong>River</strong> basin, exhibited the poorest water qualityamong the sites sampled, falling in the 75th to 95th percentiles of Florida streams formost parameters in each year of monitoring (Table 2).Other sites at which “poor” water quality conditions were observed included:• <strong>Peace</strong> Creek Canal near Wahneta (in water years 1998 <strong>and</strong> 1999),• <strong>Peace</strong> <strong>River</strong> at Bartow (1998, 1999)• <strong>Peace</strong> <strong>River</strong> at Ft. Meade (1998)• <strong>Peace</strong> <strong>River</strong> at Zolfo Springs (1998)• <strong>Peace</strong> <strong>River</strong> at Arcadia (1998)• Big Slough Canal near <strong>Myakka</strong> City (2000).Two sites exhibited consistently “good” water quality based on the WQI:• Shell Creek near Punta Gorda (1998-2001)• <strong>Myakka</strong> <strong>River</strong> at <strong>Myakka</strong> City (1999-2001).“Good” water quality conditions were also found during one or more years at thefollowing stations:• <strong>Myakka</strong> <strong>River</strong> near Sarasota (1999, 2000)• Deer Prairie Slough near North Port (1999)• <strong>Peace</strong> <strong>River</strong> at Ft. Meade (2000)• <strong>Peace</strong> <strong>River</strong> at Arcadia (2000)• Charlie Creek near Gardner (2000)• Horse Creek near <strong>Myakka</strong> Head (1999)• Horse Creek near Arcadia (1999).The remaining stations <strong>and</strong> years would be characterized as “fair” based on the WQI.2.4 EXCEEDANCES OF STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDSAlthough WQI values are helpful in providing an easily-underst<strong>and</strong>able summary ofgeneral water quality conditions, they are calculated using a limited number ofparameters <strong>and</strong> must be interpreted with care. A more detailed examination ofmonitoring data, focusing on additional parameters, can also be helpful to identify waterquality issues that may go unnoticed in an analysis based on WQI values alone.The State of Florida has adopted water quality st<strong>and</strong>ards (summarized in Ch. 62-302,Florida Administrative Code) for a number of water quality constituents, in order tomaintain productive populations of fish <strong>and</strong> wildlife <strong>and</strong> protect human health. In somecases these st<strong>and</strong>ards may be exceeded due to natural factors, <strong>and</strong> exceedances of11
- Page 1 and 2: Peace and Myakka RiverWater Quality
- Page 3 and 4: CONTENTSExecutive Summary .........
- Page 5 and 6: REPORT ORGANIZATION AND SCOPEThe pr
- Page 7 and 8: “Good” water quality conditions
- Page 9 and 10: The primary manmade influences incl
- Page 11 and 12: Yields of total suspended solids (T
- Page 13 and 14: are transported from fresh to more
- Page 15 and 16: LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1. Map showin
- Page 17 and 18: 1.0 INTRODUCTION1.1 BACKGROUNDDurin
- Page 19 and 20: maintaining water quality at levels
- Page 21 and 22: on the initial day of field work; t
- Page 23 and 24: Figure 1. Locations of USGS gaging
- Page 25: ANNUAL RAINFALLANNUAL STREAMFLOW% O
- Page 29 and 30: • Big Slough Canal near Myakka Ci
- Page 31 and 32: Table 2. Annual WQI values for non-
- Page 33 and 34: Peace River at Zolfo Springs (USGS
- Page 35 and 36: Horse Creek near Myakka Head (USGS
- Page 37 and 38: Myakka River near Sarasota (USGS ga
- Page 39 and 40: 3.0 CONSTITUENT LOADS AND YIELDSEst
- Page 41 and 42: Table 3. Estimated annual TN loads
- Page 43 and 44: Table 5. Estimated annual NO 2+3 -N
- Page 45 and 46: Table 7. Estimated annual TP loads
- Page 47 and 48: Table 9. Estimated annual TSS loads
- Page 49 and 50: Myakka City gaging station (in wate
- Page 51 and 52: PEA CE CREEK CANAL nr WAHNETASADDLE
- Page 53 and 54: PEACE CREEK CANAL nr WAHNETASADDLE
- Page 55 and 56: PEACE CREEK CANAL nr WAHNETASADDLE
- Page 57 and 58: PEACE CREEK CANAL nr WAHNETASADDLE
- Page 59 and 60: PEACE CREEK CANAL nr WAHNETASADDLE
- Page 61 and 62: PEACE CREEK CANAL nr WAHNETASADDLE
- Page 63 and 64: PEACE CREEK CANAL nr WAHNETASADDLE
- Page 65 and 66: PEACE CREEK CANAL nr WAHNETASADDLE
- Page 67 and 68: ###TidalMyakkaRiverTidalPeaceRiverS
- Page 69 and 70: Median color values for Florida riv
- Page 71 and 72: ecorded at least once during most y
- Page 73 and 74: 5.0 REFERENCESCanfield, D., and M.
- Page 75 and 76: Water Quality Conditionsand Polluta
- Page 77 and 78:
TURBIDITY (NTU), BY STATION AND WAT
- Page 79 and 80:
TURBIDITY, BY STATION AND WATER YEA
- Page 81 and 82:
TSS, BY STATION AND WATER YEARGAGE_
- Page 83 and 84:
COLOR (PCU), BY STATION AND WATERGA
- Page 85 and 86:
COLOR, BY STATION AND WATER YEARGAG
- Page 87 and 88:
pH, BY STATION AND WATER YEARGAGE_N
- Page 89 and 90:
SPEC. COND. (uS/CM), BY STATION AND
- Page 91 and 92:
SPEC. COND., BY STATION AND WATER Y
- Page 93 and 94:
DO, BY STATION AND WATER YEARGAGE_N
- Page 95 and 96:
CHLA [MONOCHROMATIC, uG/L], BY STAT
- Page 97 and 98:
CHLA [MONOCHROMATIC], BY STATION AN
- Page 99 and 100:
NH4-N, BY STATION AND WATER YEARGAG
- Page 101 and 102:
NO23-N (MG N/L), BY STATION AND WAT
- Page 103 and 104:
NO23-N, BY STATION AND WATER YEARGA
- Page 105 and 106:
TKN, BY STATION AND WATER YEARGAGE_
- Page 107 and 108:
PO4-P (MG P/L), BY STATION AND WATE
- Page 109 and 110:
PO4-P, BY STATION AND WATER YEARGAG
- Page 111 and 112:
TP, BY STATION AND WATER YEARGAGE_N
- Page 113 and 114:
TOC (MG/L), BY STATION AND YEARGAGE
- Page 115 and 116:
TOC, BY STATION AND YEARGAGE_NUM WY
- Page 117 and 118:
Near-surface salinity (ppt)SITE WY
- Page 119 and 120:
Near-surface salinity (ppt)SITE WY
- Page 121 and 122:
Near-surface color (PCU)SITE WY N M
- Page 123 and 124:
Near-surface TSS (mg/L)SITE WY N Mi
- Page 125 and 126:
Near-surface TSS (mg/L)SITE WY N Mi
- Page 127 and 128:
Near-surface turbidity (NTU)SITE WY
- Page 129 and 130:
Secchi depth (m)SITE WY N Minimum 2
- Page 131 and 132:
Secchi depth (m)SITE WY N Minimum 2
- Page 133 and 134:
Near-surface pHSITE WY N Minimum 25
- Page 135 and 136:
DO (mg/L) - all depthsSITE WY N Min
- Page 137 and 138:
DO (mg/L) - all depthsSITE WY N Min
- Page 139 and 140:
Near-surface PO 4 —P (mg P/L)SITE
- Page 141 and 142:
Near-surface DIN (mg N/L)SITE WY N
- Page 143 and 144:
Near-surface DIN (mg N/L)SITE WY N
- Page 145 and 146:
Near-surface chlorophyll-a (µg/L)S